Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 313965 times)

Online Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4281
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #3280 on: March 04, 2019, 09:00:09 PM »
As it stands, it stands as...

That's an excellent summation Mr Trotter.....Thank You

Offline Zeon Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #3281 on: March 04, 2019, 11:37:50 PM »
And then there's this from Mr Campbell's FBI interview 11/24:



So! The rush towards the grassy knoll which he told Mr Biffle about turns out only to have been a movement of 'a few feet'----------after which he returned to the building.

The grounds for believing that Mr Campbell and Mrs Reid saw Mr Oswald as they passed the 'small storage room' just off the front lobby, by the front stairs-------



--------are strong!

 Thumb1:


I think you can see a man who looks pretty much exactly like Mr Campbell, running as far as to the Stemmons freeway sign, in the Malcom Couch film at about 8 secs into the film, as Couch pans away from where Mrs Reid is standing with other women.

That puts Mr. Campbell approximately 100 ft away from where he was standing on the curb with Mrs Reid as seen in the Wiegman film.

But then one has to wonder how Couch film could have caught Mr. Campbell doing this at 32 seconds post shots, when Mr. Campbell AND Mrs Reid both suggest as parting occured AT the 3rd shot fired. So if Mr Campbell began running towards the Stemmons freeway sign 1 or 2 seconds post last shot fired, he cwould have run 100 ft EASILY by 15 secs. NOT 32 secs.

So something is off on the Couch film supposedly starting at 24 sec post shots. To have capture Weigman turning around at 15 sec post shot and Campbell running by Stemmons sign at 15 secs post last shot, and this seen at the 8 sec mark in Couch film would defacto require Couch film to have begone at 7 seconds post last shot.

If Couch really caught Baker running past, why didnt Couch mention this in his WC testimony. Couch only refers to the getting a CLOSEUP of an officer with gun drawn. Thats NOT Baker. That  closeup of a cop is when Couch cuts and restarts his camera as they travel down Elm st and the officer is seen to left of the car as they go past him.

So this puts into the question since, Mrs Reid has DISSAPPEARED in the Darnell film, but is apparently being caught at 24 seconds post shots by Couch film and Baker running past, HOW is this possible? A couple of other people seem to vanish also, in the overlapp comparison of Couch and Darnell, and this suggests one of the films is later than the other.

Then one has to question if there is any way possible that the Couch film is a composite film of Darnell catching Baker running at 24 sec post shots, overlayed with Couch film that actually began at 5 to 7 seconds post shots.

This would make it SEEM like Mrs Reid was there when Baker ran past, while in fact, Mrs Reid could have left at about 10 sec post shots, she being completely 180 turned around and facing TSBD just before Couch film pans away about 5 sec into Couch film.

One has to wonder why Mrs Reid also has NO mention of Baker almost running right thru her. Neither Couch nor Reid, nor any other of those women whom apparently Baker is running thru made any mention of seeing a DPD officer running thru them.

Very curious.



Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1997
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #3282 on: March 05, 2019, 06:34:54 AM »

[...]

So this puts into the question since, Mrs Reid has DISSAPPEARED in the Darnell film, [...]

We don't know what Mrs Reid looked like!


Quote
Then one has to question if there is any way possible that the Couch film is a composite film of Darnell catching Baker running at 24 sec post shots, overlayed with Couch film that actually began at 5 to 7 seconds post shots.

No!

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #3283 on: March 05, 2019, 03:02:39 PM »

I think you can see a man who looks pretty much exactly like Mr Campbell, running as far as to the Stemmons freeway sign, in the Malcom Couch film at about 8 secs into the film, as Couch pans away from where Mrs Reid is standing with other women.

That puts Mr. Campbell approximately 100 ft away from where he was standing on the curb with Mrs Reid as seen in the Wiegman film.

But then one has to wonder how Couch film could have caught Mr. Campbell doing this at 32 seconds post shots, when Mr. Campbell AND Mrs Reid both suggest as parting occured AT the 3rd shot fired. So if Mr Campbell began running towards the Stemmons freeway sign 1 or 2 seconds post last shot fired, he cwould have run 100 ft EASILY by 15 secs. NOT 32 secs.

So something is off on the Couch film supposedly starting at 24 sec post shots. To have capture Weigman turning around at 15 sec post shot and Campbell running by Stemmons sign at 15 secs post last shot, and this seen at the 8 sec mark in Couch film would defacto require Couch film to have begone at 7 seconds post last shot.

If Couch really caught Baker running past, why didnt Couch mention this in his WC testimony. Couch only refers to the getting a CLOSEUP of an officer with gun drawn. Thats NOT Baker. That  closeup of a cop is when Couch cuts and restarts his camera as they travel down Elm st and the officer is seen to left of the car as they go past him.

So this puts into the question since, Mrs Reid has DISSAPPEARED in the Darnell film, but is apparently being caught at 24 seconds post shots by Couch film and Baker running past, HOW is this possible? A couple of other people seem to vanish also, in the overlapp comparison of Couch and Darnell, and this suggests one of the films is later than the other.

Then one has to question if there is any way possible that the Couch film is a composite film of Darnell catching Baker running at 24 sec post shots, overlayed with Couch film that actually began at 5 to 7 seconds post shots.

This would make it SEEM like Mrs Reid was there when Baker ran past, while in fact, Mrs Reid could have left at about 10 sec post shots, she being completely 180 turned around and facing TSBD just before Couch film pans away about 5 sec into Couch film.

One has to wonder why Mrs Reid also has NO mention of Baker almost running right thru her. Neither Couch nor Reid, nor any other of those women whom apparently Baker is running thru made any mention of seeing a DPD officer running thru them.

Very curious.

       Assigning timelines to JFK Assassination witnesses based on the currently accepted timelines of assassination films/images is a Huge Mistake. Especially when the Wiegman Film is involved. For roughly 40 years it was merely accepted/rubber stamped that Wiegman shot his film Continuously. Today, we Know that is Total BS. As Wiegman was running around the knoll, he claimed in Trask's "Pictures Of The Pain" that he saw SA Lem Johns UP on the knoll. Somehow, the image of SA Lem Johns avoided being captured Anywhere on the Wiegman Film. As long as this Black Hole remains in the Wiegman Film, using it to timeline anything or anybody immediately after the assassination will result in the absolute confusion lamented above.   
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 03:05:51 PM by Royell Storing »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3371
Prayer Woman
« Reply #3284 on: March 05, 2019, 04:59:42 PM »
Thumb1:

"And I turned to Sarah..."



Frazier also adds "So we stood there for a few minutes" and moves his right hand back and forth to his right gesturing to Sarah off to his right in the Prayer Man spot in that same clip...

Iacoletti is just naysaying everything and shouldn't be taken seriously...

My evidence has proven Prayer Man is Stanton...

Online Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4281
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #3285 on: March 05, 2019, 05:32:57 PM »
Frazier also adds "So we stood there for a few minutes" and moves his right hand back and forth to his right gesturing to Sarah off to his right in the Prayer Man spot in that same clip...

Iacoletti is just naysaying everything and shouldn't be taken seriously...

My evidence has proven Prayer Man is Stanton...

I do not have a dog in this race.....  But If I can break the tie and advance the debate.... FWIW... The figure in the shadow in the entrance is a woman....Who she is?...I donno.

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3371
Prayer Woman
« Reply #3286 on: March 05, 2019, 05:39:37 PM »
The Prayer Man nuts tried to enter the Prayer Man claim on the Wikipedia Kennedy Assassination article...It got deleted...Here's what the Wikipedia moderator wrote:

" The page reflects the conclusions, in large part, of the official investigations. The "Prayer Man' claim is an example of a claim (Like the Hickey "shot" at Kennedy) which is based on an extremely flimsy piece of evidence (a very blurry image of a man in the TSBD doorway in the Couch film who, the author and others claim, was Oswald) which requires the reams of evidence placing Oswald elsewhere to be discredited, dismissed or ignored. So, while Roy Truly positively identified Oswald as the man Baker stopped (Truly, after all, hired him) and confirmed the location as the 2nd floor, he is therefore a liar and somehow involved with the "conspiracy". Baker's statement that the person he encountered was on the 3rd or 4th floor and that the man was "about 30" is elevated to the level of Gospel truth that this "couldn't" have been Oswald (who was 24), despite both Baker and Truly saying they encountered the same man. The fact that Baker had never set foot in the building and therefore could easily be unsure of where the encounter took place (he didn't specify a floor after all) is neither here nor there in the realm of conspiracy theorists. Of course the fact that Oswald HIMSELF confirmed the encounter...well, that was planted evidence, he never said that, etc. Others who saw Oswald leave the area and go through the office with a bottle of Coke are also dismissed, as is the fact the numerous employees who would have seen Oswald on the steps but never identified him...well, they must have been part of the conspiracy as well!   

In other words, this is not simply a "new" theory, it is a "fringe" theory as it dismisses, out of hand, positive, corroborating evidence in order to accept flimsy evidence placing Oswald elsewhere. It more properly resides on the conspiracy theory page. "   

While I agree with the Wikipedia moderator that the theory is bunk I disagree with his logic...I think Baker fudged the location of Oswald because he was trying to cover-up the fact Oswald was in the second floor lunch room...This Wikipedia moderator is oblivious to the fact it is possible Baker also saw another person on the 3rd floor landing...His best point is that other employees would have seen Oswald on the front steps if he was out there...

What you are seeing is the damage that the DiEugenio-approved Prayer Man nuts are causing the credible assassination research community...They are giving official story backers the chance to dismiss credible researchers out of hand and associate them with nut researchers like Bart Kamp...

In the same Wikipedia "Talk" page entry one of Bart's group referred to Stan Dane as a "JFK Historian"...Dane is an internet troll who specializes in making mocking photoshop images and videos of credible researchers...

The Wikipedia mod also lacks the research sophistication to realize the Oswald with a Coke that Mrs Reid saw might very likely be a second Oswald...

In no way do I back the Wikipedia mods...They banned me after I posted on the Hendrix "Talk" page that there was good evidence for Jimi's murder...However in this case they are correct about the nutty Prayer Man claim...

                 

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3371
Prayer Woman
« Reply #3287 on: March 05, 2019, 05:42:34 PM »
I do not have a dog in this race.....  But If I can break the tie and advance the debate.... FWIW... The figure in the shadow in the entrance is a woman....Who she is?...I donno.

I never took your input seriously Walt...I saw it as the thread-hijacking, frivolous input is was that was probably based on you being bored and looking for a subject to post on that you obviously had no serious interest in...

I've already proven Prayer Man is Stanton if you bothered to read the proof...It's worth nothing and has only hampered the truth in an irritating way...
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 05:48:44 PM by Brian Doyle »

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #3288 on: March 05, 2019, 05:45:32 PM »

    My personal opinion based on 40 years of listening to the Ever Morphing Story promoted by Buell Frazier = his Not being a Reliable Witness. I believe Frazier is sincere about whatever he might be saying, but  as used to be said regarding individuals such as this, "Nobody's home".

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3371
Prayer Woman
« Reply #3289 on: March 05, 2019, 05:52:55 PM »
    My personal opinion based on 40 years of listening to the Ever Morphing Story promoted by Buell Frazier = his Not being a Reliable Witness. I believe Frazier is sincere about whatever he might be saying, but  as used to be said regarding individuals such as this, "Nobody's home".

Says Royell while ignoring pages and pages of corroborating evidence that shows why Frazier's gesturing to his right in reference to Stanton is valid...

What the Prayer Man crazies do is take real evidence of Frazier hiding something and bend it towards Prayer Man...

His gesturing to his right in reference to Sarah is not consciously done...It is being done in reaction to his unconscious memory and therefore is the free-flowing truth...

Lovelady also put Sarah in the same spot in his 1964 FBI statement...

 

Mobile View